Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):They're comparable in this way:

1) First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2) Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3) Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.

So you think it was a good thing that blacks didnt get full rights right away?

That's not my argument. You're the one equating blacks and gays. I'm just playing along with your analogy.

But what the heck . . . do you think blacks would have been happier if slavery existed for another 100 years or so until they suddenly got full equality?

You're going at it in the wrong direction. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that not giving blacks full equal rights was wrong, the incremental step was a mistake. In a much shorter time period, we're going to look back on this and see that it was a mistake not to give gays full marriage rights.

Yeah. Because forcing people into hard labor, and beating them if they don't work hard enough, is quite comparable to not letting people call their unions "marriage".

I'm sure we'll look back and think the same about those two situations.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):Like Mike said, it's pretty stupid and downright insulting to compare the plight of blacks with the "plight" of gays. Gays are in a much better situation in 2013 than blacks were in 1865.

It's interesting that you're cool with playing along with the analogy until the analogy reaches a point that's difficult to argue, and then you claim it's insulting to compare the two.

I think the blacks in 1865 were happy just to not be slaves anymore. I don't think they were all about being vocal and indignant about their social status to the extent that gays and the "social cause wanna-be's" are today.

You really can't compare the two situations.

That's fair.

I'm just arguing that gays aren't "setting themselves back" by trying to get gay marriage accepted. I don't think the hamburger/toy analogies Mike has made are accurate.

I'll use smaller words.

They are meeting with more opposition in attempting get SSM allowed than they would if they simply asked for equal rights with civil unions.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):They're comparable in this way:

1) First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2) Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3) Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.

So you think it was a good thing that blacks didnt get full rights right away?

That's not my argument. You're the one equating blacks and gays. I'm just playing along with your analogy.

But what the heck . . . do you think blacks would have been happier if slavery existed for another 100 years or so until they suddenly got full equality?

You're going at it in the wrong direction. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that not giving blacks full equal rights was wrong, the incremental step was a mistake. In a much shorter time period, we're going to look back on this and see that it was a mistake not to give gays full marriage rights.

Yeah. Because forcing people into hard labor, and beating them if they don't work hard enough, is quite comparable to not letting people call their unions "marriage".

I'm sure we'll look back and think the same about those two situations.

Says the guy who argues everything with analogies.

Look, I've said several times that the struggle isn't the same. But learning from the past is important. Separate but equal isn't the right way to do things.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 12:16:00 PM (view original):They're asking for both. It's not one or the other and they're choosing SSM. They'll be happy to take equal rights for unions but will also ask for it to be called SSM.

Why would you need equal rights with civil unions if you're allowed to be married? Wouldn't that make civil unions obsolete?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):They're comparable in this way:

1) First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2) Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3) Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.

So you think it was a good thing that blacks didnt get full rights right away?

That's not my argument. You're the one equating blacks and gays. I'm just playing along with your analogy.

But what the heck . . . do you think blacks would have been happier if slavery existed for another 100 years or so until they suddenly got full equality?

You're going at it in the wrong direction. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that not giving blacks full equal rights was wrong, the incremental step was a mistake. In a much shorter time period, we're going to look back on this and see that it was a mistake not to give gays full marriage rights.

Yeah. Because forcing people into hard labor, and beating them if they don't work hard enough, is quite comparable to not letting people call their unions "marriage".

I'm sure we'll look back and think the same about those two situations.

Says the guy who argues everything with analogies.

Look, I've said several times that the struggle isn't the same. But learning from the past is important. Separate but equal isn't the right way to do things.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):I'm not comparing it to slavery, dumbshit. I'm comparing the gay rights movemt to the civil rights movement 50 years ago. Not the same but comparable.

Still not comparable. I'll go back to this(that you ignored):

"You cannot eat in this establishment. And, if you think you can, we might just hang your *** when the sun goes down."
"You cannot call your union a marriage. And, if you think you can, we'll see you in court!!!"

Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):I'm not comparing it to slavery, dumbshit. I'm comparing the gay rights movemt to the civil rights movement 50 years ago. Not the same but comparable.

Still not comparable. I'll go back to this(that you ignored):

"You cannot eat in this establishment. And, if you think you can, we might just hang your *** when the sun goes down."
"You cannot call your union a marriage. And, if you think you can, we'll see you in court!!!"

Seriously, read up on the 60s.

You must have missed the post where I said it's not the same thing. Your inability to get past that is unsurprising. My point is that we now know that separate but equal isn't right. With the benefit of hindsight we see that it was a mistake made during the civil rights movement. We shouldn't make the same mistake now.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 12:55:00 PM (view original):BTW, allowing civil union to have the same meaning as marriage(while not specifically calling it "marriage") isn't comparable to a seperate drinking fountain or bathroom.

FWIW, despite being a middle-age white man, I find it offensive that you're using the civil rights fight as some sort of "precedent" for the right of SSM. It's insulting to the people that died, or were beaten/mistreated, during the civil rights battle. No one is taking clubs to the head or bullets to the brain in your "fight" for SSM. I'm surprised more people aren't offended by your constant comparisons.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):FWIW, despite being a middle-age white man, I find it offensive that you're using the civil rights fight as some sort of "precedent" for the right of SSM. It's insulting to the people that died, or were beaten/mistreated, during the civil rights battle. No one is taking clubs to the head or bullets to the brain in your "fight" for SSM. I'm surprised more people aren't offended by your constant comparisons.

********, a) I don't give a **** if you are offended b) I've said several times that they aren't the same thing but that we can learn from our mistakes. Separate but equal wasn't right then. Separate but equal is also not right now.

The idea that you can suddenly appreciate the nuances of different situations is laughable considering the comparisons you've made in this thread alone.